Or it's a list of prospective homeowners with property worth stealing. Or a list of people who are trying to hide from abusive exes who got gun permits to protect themselves. Why is the list of permit holders anybody else's business?

I think the comparison to the sex offenders map is apt. This map serves as a perfect counterbalance to that registered sex offenders map.

You see, there's a fine line between self defense and vigilantism. Whenever somebody gets raped or a child goes missing, there's a heightened risk of violence against people on the sex offenders list because everybody assumes they did it. Since random gun owners now know where former sex offenders live, it's only fair that the knowledge be mutual.:-)

I see this ass an introduction on how a newspaper can be involved as a conspirator or accomplice to a variety of crimes.

I've known people who get firearms permits for all kinds of reasons. Some people get them to protect themselves because of their line of work. Like managers of stores carry because they are transporting the end of day cash to the bank. Some people get them for self defense after threat or action has threatened their lives. Some just do it because they do have the right.

In one jurisdiction, at least it was, off-duty police couldn't carry their firearms unless they had a permit. Their weapon went in the trunk of their car at the end of the shift, and then they moved it from the trunk to their home. So virtually all police officers were also concealed carry permit holders.

I am concealed weapons holder. I've carried a few times, for need. If I lived there, I really wouldn't want my name and address published. I'd be furious.

This list is not a list to inform. A dot map without specific names and addresses would have done that job. What they've done is made public a shopping list for criminals. They know they can observe a residence for a while, learn the patterns of the occupants, and when they aren't home, rob it. There's an increased chance of finding a home containing firearms.

While B&E to a home can get them some pretty high value items, not many items are as compact and easy to transport, and as valuable on the black market, as a firearm. A $500 pistol that can fit in your pocket can bring double that on the black market. A $500 TV doesn't fit in your pocket, and will only sell at a small percent of it's list price.

Well when the paper uses it's free speech to endanger the lives and property of others by noting for criminals which houses are unprotected and may be burglarized without fear of adding a felony gun crime to possible charges when a crowbar will do. On the other hand if one has a gun and wants another it becomes easier to do your shopping if you know where to go, which really amounts to the paper condoning, hell, even facilitating future " gun crimes", how extremely profitable for the paper. Not so much for free speech or free people. This is an example of the fatal error of slackly publicly educated liberals ignorantly shouting FIRE! in a theatre to generate headlines of people being trampled. UYYEAAAHHH , free speech alright.....Doh, Homer!

You assume that because I don't show up on such a list that I'm unarmed. None of the shotguns that I inherited from my father are listed anywhere, but they all work perfectly well. These lists indicate permit holders, which are required for hand guns. Owners of rifles generally don't need permits.

The first amendment now means all government records should be public? I don't think anyone is denying the right of the people to publish any information they can legally obtain. Instead the argument is that the information should not be public. That in no way violates the first amendment. Unless you think the CIA should just be a web forum where we can all pitch in.

I thought that owing a gun was supposed to deter crime? Be proud, put up an "armed response" sign on your front door.

If gun ownership is to deter crime en masse, then it's important for it not to be known who has a gun and who does not. The risk is what truly matters: someone specifically looking for a gun to steal needs to not be able to be sure which houses have them, and someone not looking for a weapon needs to not know which houses will bring no chance of armed response.

Yes, a few irrational folks might be scared to not know who has the Big Scary Weapons. That is their problem, and no one else's.

OMFG, this is such a bad idea! They've just publicly announced, for every felon nearby, which homes to search for a weapon!

It's going to be like the Walmart of guns! "Bob, age 32, drives to work every day at 9 AM...has a dog, Mr. Scruffles...leaves his garage door unlocked. Well, we know he has a gun, probably in the closet or under his pillow. Let's pick it up after he leaves for work, I feel naked walking around without a gun after prison..."

Why don't you publish the names, addresses, and photos of children in the local area whose parents get home late! It's about that level of FAIL.

They've single-handedly just increased the number of gun deaths and home invasions. *golf clap* Well played, well played.

How would you feel if they registered all of the homosexuals and printed maps of where they all live? What's that, there's a difference, you say? Indeed there is - gun ownership is a specifically enumerated right in the bill of rights, while homosexuality is not.

Both being recognized as rights is good for society. If you think you can justify one, then why not the other?

According to the article, they obtained the information through "Freedom of Information" laws. By your reasoning, shouldn't I be able to obtain your social security number, credit score, and medical information through the same laws?

If it's registered with the state or feds it's basically "publicly obtainable information". Cars, businesses, professional licenses, etc. are all public (in one form or another) and searchable (in one form or another). Why should anything else that is registered with the state/feds be any different?

SSN's aren't the same at all and should not be public information. SSN's aren't registered, they are assigned, and all US residents are legally required to have one [wikipedia.org] by the age of one y/o.

You miss the point. Weapons shouldn't be registered to start with. The state shouldn't have any idea who owns what. It's none of their business. The only people whose business it is, is mine, the wife's the children's, and whoever the hell tries to break into my home. That's it.

It becomes everyone's business when your property is a hazard or risk to others. If you on a sweater that's fine. A gun is more like a car. If you want to own it and operate it there some regulations to limit the risk that your neighbors have to endure.

He has a good point since GP committed the initial fallacy of saying that an inanimate object is a risk to others. Diseases are not a risk to others if the carrier follows quarantine procedures, in the same manner that guns are not a risk to others if owners keep their guns secured. However, if we are to make the assumption that gun owners in the aggregate cannot be trusted to be 100% vigilant in securing their guns and therefore pose a risk to others, then we must assume the same of disease carriers.

It's all well and good to wish that others lives were laid out for all to see, but not yours right? Before you think everyone you disagree with should be exposed, perhaps you should consider that things change and before you know it, you might be singled out for some cause or reason.

People like you have taken the bait. Hook, line and sinker. So quickly you forget what you know.

The shool shooting couldn't happen as it did without two important conditions being met:

1. A person had to be capable of such an act: mental/emotional problems gone unresolved and unaddressed2. Availability of weaponry.

it doesn't appear to bother anyone that people with severe mental and emotional problems exist. That insurance doesn't care for them. That healthcare systems tend to look the other way in order to have them released when they can't pay. The definition of "a danger to self or others" is twisted, minimalized and even ignored. And the causes of these problems go unresearched and unprevented.

We are stockpiling these loaded weapons. The real loaded weapons are these people waiting to go off. And without guns, they won't be stopped. They will resort to other things. Poisonings? Gassings? Bombings? Stabbings and slashings? What will we hope to take away from EVERYONE then? Gasoline? Propane?

The problem is that a single event is being used to punish EVERY innocent gun owner out there. How can it be justified? The gun owner who let her son have access to her weapons paid for it with her life.

When the government reacted to 9/11 by creating the DHS and the TSA, most people generally agree this inconvenience does not make us safer. It just takes away our rights without good cause. Now we're seeing it again, but the target is smaller and now we can divide the public on the issue.

And ALL of this ignores the real problem. That we have people who need help and aren't getting it. And these people can and are dangerous to the public. Is the sub-issue of guns more important than the real issue of WHO IS DANGEROUS to the public?

A gun is more like a car. If you want to own it and operate it there some regulations to limit the risk that your neighbors have to endure.

There are also rule about privacy of car ownership. Under federal law, you can't simply call up the DMV and find out the registered owner of a car based on the license plate. You have to have specified, limited reasons for doing so, and there are records kept of such requests: Driver Privacy Protection Act [wikipedia.org]

If this isn't a 1984ish set up when the system is asking you to spy on politically "undesirable" citizens, I don't know what is.

Lets start a public list of other harmful products

Liquor - let us know where the drunks are, lets name them by faceTobacco - so you know when your kids might be harmed by tobbaco smoke.Red MeatSugary Soft Drinks.Cars larger than 3000 pounds - don't wanna get run over by roadhogs.$CONTROVERSIALMUSICSTYLE - Those cretins probably don't vote for $CANDIDATEOFCHOICE or $PARTY, along with being "scary" or terrorists.Or we could stop this politically oriented targeting of citizens. This list should not be public.

Evil is correct. We have rights, stated clearly in the Constitution. If you want to take those rights from us there is one legal means to do so - amend the Constitution, any other means is subversive, illegal and evil.

A lot of so called "gun nuts" are not really a threat to anyone, but IMHO it is really HARD to keep a gun physically secure (unless you have a private security firm to guard your weapons) I know when I get car insurance they ask questions like "does anyone else drive your car". Imagine if gun owners needed to buy gun liability insurance and key questions were asked like "do you have any one with previous or current psychological or criminal issues in your home". I'm not saying that insurance is the right answer, but just as a thought it probably would get a more formal risk assesment done.

20+ school kids have only been killed by a rampage killer 3 times in history. Frankly, it's so rare that its not even statistically significant. School busses kill more kids at once, more often than rampage killers.

Government and armies, on the other hand, kill 20 or more schoolkids at once far more often. That's why we have the 2nd amendment.

Actually, I'll assert if you get services from the government those records should be public (schools, medical, other entitlements). Furthermore, if you *work* for the government (as an individual or a company), your employment/financial records should be public.

So frankly, if you're going to allow the government to track you with licenses and permits for firearms, you have to *expect* this information to be public record. Once you've given up the 2nd amendment, don't expect the 1st one to care.

By "well-regulated militia" the founding fathers meant that individual citizens are trained to use guns, to secure a free state. Free from what? Tyranny and fascism. So, what does "well-regulated" mean? It means that you know how to use that gun to kill tyrants.

The "well regulated militia" part is an introductory subordinate clause, as such it is completely unnecessary, and we needn't worry about its interpretation. The right is stated in an independent clause that stands by itself.

It seems to me that this data falls under one of the exemptions to FOIA: "Personnel, medical and similar files, disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)" and/or "Records compiled for law enforcement purposes, 5 U.S.

So, what does "well-regulated" mean? It means that you know how to use that gun to kill tyrants.

Talk to a colonial era re-enactor and he will tell you that rifles were rarely seen in combat and that muskets were useless except as a mass fire weapon . The problem is accuracy. The problem is rate-of-fire

The long rifle is prone to fouling, and takes a full minute to re-load.

The "well regulated" militia wasn't a beer and chowder marching society. Every move you would make in combat had be rehearsed again and again and again until you got it right. Then next week you come back for more....

If the Founding Fathers had meant "trained" they would have written "trained" instead of "regulated". But they didn't because it's not they they meant.

Actually no he is right, regulated means trained and properly equipped in this sense. The English language has been corrupted over time to mean strictly mean only regulated in the sense of controlled under the law.

A well regulated machine is one that has proper preventative maintenance and can preform when called upon without fail. Not because it is regulated by law to preform or function.

Maybe so, but as justice Scalia has stated on numerous occasions, 'concealed weapons should be legal especially if it's like a totally bad ass maching gun being hidden under a trench coat like in the matrix'.

"Regulated" is a governmental euphemism that came to mean what it does because instead of saying "We are going to pass laws to control X", the government consistently comes up with more palatable (like "we are going to regulate(old meaning) X") to hide the true nature. Over time, now "regulated" actually means "controlled by law". People eventually wise up to the new meaning.

There should be a special category for language changes caused by government euphemism. I predict the following future usages:

Current word:True political meaning, eventually becoming common meaning after people wise upLiberated:InvadedStimulated:TaxedFair:Socially EngineeredRacist:FairEncourage:ForceRich:Not dependent on governmentPeace:WarSlavery:Freedom

"The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States"

I wonder how appealing gun ownership would be if the owners had to turn out once a month to drill.

I'd say most would enjoy belonging to and participating with a group of like-minded individuals, but the FBI has a history of not liking these kinds of things. Isn't a powerful government great? Let's give up more of our individual sovereignty!

LOL this comment needs framing as it symbolically shows societies degradation in so many ways.

It shows the conditioned and damaged mental state of our society as a whole. No matter how smart one is, through correct social conditioning one can become as dumb as a doorknob to preserve a set of programmed ideals.

The very core of the word "regulation" is "regulate" like "government" is "govern".

Regulate VerbControl or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

Govern VerbTo make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in.To control the speed or magnitude of; regulate: a valve that governs fuel intake.To control the actions or behavior of: Govern yourselves like civilized people.

I might add common sense is becoming less common these days. Now, that lack of "common" within sense is being used to pervert the constitution so individual ideals can be preserved. I may be considered a fool for stating this but sometimes people really need to get "back to basics" before perceiving the world around them, absorb it and try to see past these forms of social conditioning.

The word "trained" is not used in the above definitions. Yet "operates properly" means that a logical process needs to be ensured some how. "Training" to enable proper operation seems logical (and simple), how else do you expect to achieve "operates properly" to ensure "regulation" is instilled? hocus pocus? more social conditioning? how about more/less video games? let's hear the bullshit I can't wait.

I wonder how appealing gun ownership would be if the owners had to turn out a compulsory drill every month.

Actually, Hamilton (in Federalist #29) only suggested an annual inspection - "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year"

You'll do it in the rain, snow, and sleet, -20; you'll do it in the hot sun, 100+; you'll do it one Saturday

Aside from the pure BS nuisance factor of weather, an indoor range would make it safer and easier (for the testers) to run people through a battery of drills to demonstrate their proficiency. Though make no mistake, I have friends who would pay to spend a weekend crawling through the cold mud on a military obstacle course / rifle range (if doing so didn't require that whole "joining the military" thing).;)

Now, in spirit, I have absolutely nothing against something akin to Hamilton's original suggestion. The slope gets pretty damned slippery, however, when someone in power needs to decide what counts as passing. Banning civilian firearms then requires nothing more than setting the bar absurdly high - "Oh, gee, sorry, you went outside the allowed 4" spread at 100 yards, better luck next year!"

It 'also might be interpreted' as such but only by someone who simply refuses to check sources. The fact of the matter is the words had that meaning at the time and some of the debates around the wording are even preserved so you can see for yourself exactly how it was understood. Regulated didnt acquire the secondary meaning of 'under strict but indirect government control' until later. The original meaning of 'in good order, well prepared' is still found as well, in phrases like a well-regulated machine or in the practice of regulating shotgun bores, but it has been eclipsed in usage. So the only way that argument can be made is out of ignorance or willful deception.

Under the militia acts from that date, the militia was understood to be 'all military aged males' in a given area. Trained and organised groups raised from the militia were specifically distinguished as 'select militia.'

More to the point, the right to keep and bear arms isn't contingent on militia membership at all, and it never was. The second amendment doesn't even presume to grant the right. It acknowledges it as pre-existing, it cites one reason why it's important to preserve it, and specifically prohibits the federal government from infringing it.

Really you should have no concern with someone else getting your social security number. The only reason you're concerned about keeping it private is because the finance industry have misused it as a secret personal identifier for decades.

As for your credit score, that's private information created and held by private corporations. Why do you think that has any relevance to freedom of information?

Medical information is much the same. That's between you, your doctor and your insurance company. I don't think you need to provide details of medical treatments to the government, or request government permission in advance to be allowed the treatment.

We have no guarantee of privacy in this country. Nowhere in the constitution is privacy even mentioned.

While I'm not a fan of abortion, I'll point out that Roe v. Wade rests on the right to privacy, "whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

I also would point out that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses

Actually, if someone obtains your personal information you can sue them for damages, but they are not breaking any laws.
So yes, they can be obtained. But whoever gave them to you, and yourself, are liable for any issues that arise from that, much like publishing a gun owners list.

I have a FOID card, but do not own a gun. Sorry that so many here do not understand the difference. There is no gun in my home, but I would appear on such a map. Is that really right? I think not. Why not an "armed robbery" registry? Murderer registry? Speeding ticket registry? Drunk driver registry? Car accident-causer registry? Etc., etc....

At least the fact that I have a FOID card indicates that I have been vetted by the state police. To me, that makes me a safer neighbor than one who has not been vetted by the government. Right?

its not about a conflict between first amendment and the 2nd, its about privacy for citizens. As a prviate citizen, what i own should not be public record. Criminal records are public, and should be, but a legal act should not be.

And i do agree, while they are within their legal rights, the paper was not being responsible, and are doing it just to push their agenda to try to instill fear into people exersizing their rights. Which is wrong to do.

I've never heard of or seen learner plates before. I'm genuinely curious where you live that they have those, since it's an interesting idea, though a bit excessive, I think.

As for risk, how does owning a gun put anyone at "significant risk" compared to any of the other risks you regularly tolerate? A gun is only a source of risk if there is ill intent or negligence involved. But if you're concerned with ill intent, the chemicals in our garages and kitchens are more readily available, cheaper, more dangerou

The problem here has nothing to do with the availability of the information - As TFA says, it all comes from public record

The problem involve "inducement", a crime entirely separate from your right to publish things about which you should know better. NY already has a problem with gun crime. So how do we deal with that? Let's put a "respawn/restock here" point on the map for every petty thug in the city looking for a gun but too clueless to drive a few s

Let's put a "respawn/restock here" point on the map for every petty thug in the city looking for a gun but too clueless to drive a few states away and buy one themselves (possibly even legally, depending on what they've gotten busted for up to that point).

Yup, first amendment vs second amendment.
It is funny to see those gun owners who run to the amendment, get outed by the one right above it.
Really gun owners.... really?

Forget the lists of "gun owners", I want a list of the people being prescribed SSRIs.

You want to find a link between "mass shootings" and something, you need look no farther than (not so) Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors.

Seriously. Do some research. It's not gun owners we need to fear. It's irresponsible drug companies and lazy-ass doctors, who too often prescribe SSRIs without proper patient follow-up, or worse yet, who increase the SSRI dosage when a patient complains of "feeling worse" after t

Unlike being a sex offender, gun ownership is not something that is considered shameful or abhorrent by society, so one cannot really say that gun owners are "outed".

Owning valuable jewelry isn't considered shameful or abhorrent by society, but publishing a list of people who own valuable jewelry is a bad idea and encourages crime.

(Besides, there are some segments of society who do consider gun ownership abhorrent. In this regard it's like publishing a list of known homosexuals. It shouldn't be considered abhorrent, but it sometimes is, and the list makes people a target for prejudice.)

Which gives lie to this sort of stunt. Ostensibly, you do this sort of thing for public safety. But if you facilitate the theft of guns, by definition you're helping to remove guns from the hands of people who follow laws and put them in the hands of criminals. Nevertheless, this sort of stunt is done because the issue is political and you have to win political battles because the other side is full of bad people.

"Criminals". That magical word that everyone uses to delineate the us and them.Gun crime is as much crimes of passion, negligence, and stupidity by people that wouldn't have been considered "criminals" until after the fact.The US is not a shooting gallery just because it has Jesse James on every corner and guns are falling into the hands of wild gangs. It's poor regulation and background checks, poor safety requirements, mental health, etc.

The Newtown guns were stolen (from the mother.) The Columbine guns were acquired illegally, using a combination of outlawed third party purchasing and illegal underage sales. Very few mass shootings were done with legally acquired firearms.

That, and which homes are also the safest to rob. All in all, a bang up job for the journal! Really, this should call attention to the poor privacy laws in New York. This kind of information should not be public.

I'd suggest you temper your map with some localized information from these charts http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leadingcauses.html. You'll see that a simple map of "injury from a firearm" almost always includes suicides.

The concerning part is the illogical application of constitutional amendments here. If I published a list of all the people who commented on political forums in 2012 with their home address would that be okay?

They tell you nothing. For one, "gun deaths" have nothing to do with the actual number of homicides committed using firearms. The phrase "gun deaths" is used by those pushing an agenda because they get to pump up their numbers with suicides (which would occur with or without guns). Suicides account for more than two-thirds of the "gun deaths" in the US, and our suicide rate doesn't even come close to matching many other countries (including ones such as South Korea and Japan where gun ownership is severely restricted).

As far as murder rate, the US is relatively far down the list with approximately 4.2 per 100,000. Compare this to ~91 per 100,000 for Honduras.

In other words, when you look at this from a neutral angle rather than trying to push one side or another things don't seem as dire as they appear.

No they wouldn't. Suicide is not something that is decided upon irreversibly by the person who does it. It can be a moment of desperation that could very well wear off after a few minutes. In fact, if you have any experience with crying children (or adults), you probably noticed that there is a brief transient of desperation while the person calms down. If the desperation is high enough, and this person has undisturbed access to a gun, they can kill themselves on the spot; if they need to hang themselves, cut themselves to bleed to death, take poison, all of these operations require a minimum of preparation, and most importantly they take time (e.g. poison and drug overdose are not immediate; there is still time to call a doctor).

As far as murder rate, the US is relatively far down the list with approximately 4.2 per 100,000. Compare this to ~91 per 100,000 for Honduras.

Seriously? Then I guess the air quality in Beijing must be pretty good, compared to the atmosphere on Venus. Honduras is a crime state that went through a coup just a few years back, and is basically a failed state. The US murder rate is 4.2 (see the wiki [wikipedia.org]), let's see which countries have a lower one...

Turkey, 3.3

Uzbekistan, 3.1

Cambodia, 3.4

Niger, 3.8 (the poorest country on the planet)

Afghanistan, 2.4 (war casualties excluded)

Syria, 2.2 (again, war casualties excluded)

Jordan, 1.8

Sri Lanka, 3.6

Iran, 3.0

Bangladesh, 2.7

China, 1.0

Egypt, 1.2

Western Europe, average 1.0

So yes, the US murder rate is unparalleled for a developed nation, and much closer to that of poor or half-failed countries. Of course if you drag into the picture narcorepublics and countries that are more like institutionalised criminal syndicates than republics, the statistics look a bit better, but it's like putting lipstick on a pig—it's still 4.2 by 100k.

So yes, the US murder rate is unparalleled for a developed nation, and much closer to that of poor or half-failed countries

You need to count state-sponsored murder. Murder of the citizenry one at a time because you don't have a better solution is still murder no matter how you dress it up as the "death penalty". Now, compare murders in China to the USA. HTH, HAND.

> As far as murder rate, the US is relatively far down the list with approximately 4.2 per 100,000. Compare this to ~91 per 100,000 for Honduras.

Are your standards really so low that you would compare yourself to the country with the highest number of homicides in the world? How about you compare your country to some first-world countries instead? Try any of the countries in Western Europe, or Japan, or even China...

This is only a list of handguns, which you need a permit to own. It does not list rifles or shotguns, which make up a significant percentage of guns owned by Americans. Although it is more probable that the households that own handguns also own more of the rifles and shotguns than households without handguns, there are still many gun owning households that are not listed here. In fact, I know someone who lives in this area who is not listed, but has a rifle in her house.

That's what happens when people get obsessed with safety. Freedoms are sacrificed to get safety, and sometimes the safety received isn't even real. That is precisely why we have the TSA, the Patriot Act, and other such nonsense, and why people try so hard to get rid of guns. They'd rather remove people's freedoms than accept a few casualties.

If by "balance" you mean trying to find ways to increase safety without removing 'fundamental' freedoms, then probably. Get rid of the TSA, the Patriot Act, free speech zones, and all that other garbage, though.

You cannot e.g. take an idea from someone and not return it -- there is absolutely NO WAY of removing the idea from someone else, you merely copy it. Similarly, piracy is all about copying, not stealing. You should learn the difference.

Uhh, no. No shame in owning a weapon. Instead, they just announced who to rob, and who to rob during the day when the home's occupants are at work. Because a fair number of felons acquire guns after leaving prison, and this newspaper just handed them a holiday shopping list. Merry Christmas everyone!

I'm sure the people with guns will be happy knowing that their homes may be ransacked by criminals looking for their guns (worth more than jewelry), while the people without will be happy knowing that criminals

Make it a socially reprehensible act to be homosexual(even though it's not illegal) and you'll see how fast people's attitude towards gays and lesbians will change for the better. And the good news ? You don't have to get Congress involved, or the LGBTA, etc...
Just public shame.

Which is an exceedingly important fact. While handguns and long guns go together like.... well, I'll leave it to your imaginations - lots of people have one or the other. So the only utility of this map is to annoy gun owners and make some sort of social noise (ooh, lots of people have guns).

Let's rephrase it: This is a map of people with registered handguns. Not rifles, not caches of ammunition, diesel and ammonium nitrate (those are the people you want to have a reasonable buffer around), not unregistered guns. So it tells you - not much.

Want to see who has more disposable income? Check out property values. Look at cars.Want to see how many people have alarm systems? Stumble around Google Maps or for heaven's sake, walk around a neighborhood ('case the joint').

It's a dick move and won't help move the discussion very far, but that's journalism.

[About how robbers would get your gun when that gun is locked up]They put a gun to your kids head (or a knife to their throat) and politely ask for the key to the guns.Now it is up to you to use your right to defend yourself with said gun and shoot the robber. Extra points if your kid gets away unharmed.

They put a gun to your kids head (or a knife to their throat) and politely ask for the key to the guns.

Right. They're going to risk a murder rap to steal your pistol. What is it, Elvis's silver plated limited edition Colt? There are 300 million guns in the USA at least. Any idiot can get a gun for pocket change. And it's a lot easier to steal pocket change and buy one than take your family hostage. Just because you love your gun more than life itself doesn't make it the crown jewels.

maybe they should publish a list of homes with poisonous household chemicals, prescription drugs, swimming pools, razor blades, exposed A/C outlets, 6 foot ladders, ornamental samurai swords and anything else that might harm children... Do you not see how absurd this is ? IMHO this is utterly insane, it is NOT the same as publishing a list of registered sex offenders, protecting children from people is not the same as protecting them from objects. If your child goes over to a neighbors house its OK to ask them if they have guns and they are safe, in fact its YOUR responsibility as a parent !!

Move to California or NJ or CT or NY or MA, and you can enjoy your false sense of security.

BTW, REAL assault weapons are almost impossible to get due to NFA of 1934 and Hughes of 86. What you're so terrified of are rifles that only LOOK like assault rifles. But considering the stupidity of your statement, I highly doubt you have the IQ to understand the difference.